to be bl**dy furious that my DD has measles because other parents won't vaccinate?

[elportodelgato]

poor DD is only 11 mo and has horrid measles all over her, full of cold, streaming eyes, diarrhea, very unhappy and sleepy and limp. I am so so for her, but more I am absolutely bloody with idiot parents who won't have the MMR!

The doctor actually told me this morning that the reason it is so prevalent in our area is because of stupid people refusing to vaccinate their children and compromising the immunity of the whole group. So now my LO, who is only 2 months off having the vaccination herself, is really really sick because of other people's stupidity. It's making my blood boil! Do people not realise how dangerous it can be in little babies? And does anyone still seriously believe the so called "research" which claimed a link between MMR and autism? It has been so completely discredited in recent years you would think people would have got over it by now and started vaccinating again

Arrgh!!

Anyone reading this thread would certainly not get the impression that the anti-vaccinators are basing their on a rare idiosyncratic effect.

Leonie are you seriously saying you would prefer a measles epidemic and the guaranteed infant deaths that would go along with that? of course, in your view this would be preferable to a very very statistically tiny group of children possibly, maybe developing some mainly treatable conditions

to the OP - you are not unreasonable to be upset that your dd is ill but you are competely unreasonable to call parents who do not choose the MMR ' stupid people' and 'idiot parents'.

There are plenty of people who contract measles who have already been vaccinated so that argument is worthless.

There are also plenty of people whose parents have very valid reasons for not vaccinating, as amply illustrated on this thread.

So there you have it.

Donnie, if vaccinations are so worthless, how is the dramatic decline in the incidence of measles in countries which do vaccinate explained? Genuine question.

A rare idiosyncratic effect at population level, isn't necessary going to be rare and idiosyncratic within one family.

Thanks for replies, I think what I am hoping for is the impossible - a way to test that vaccination is ok for that individual before they have the vaccination.

As I am from a medical background myself (and rather shaky as I have not practised for years!!) I spent an enormous amount of time deciding what to do and the decision was not taken lightly especially after weighing up benefit/risks repeatedly.

One possible consideration is that it may well be that some children should not be vaccinated with MMR because of a rare idiosyncratic reaction - important to those children and their parents, however because of what happened (after the original paper was published) within the scientific press and the media the actual truth may never come out because no claim will ever be taken seriously again.

I'm grateful to posters who come on to these threads time after time to challenge assumptions about vaccinating with such knowledge, grace and patience.

I'll be less sceptical about the talk of social responsibility and taking care of each others children when ds2, (with autism) is treated with respect and kindness, or, god forbid, invited round to play occasionally.

reach4sky - I didn't say vaccinations are worthless, I said the OP's line of argument was worthless.

Plus isn't it the case that the vaxes are only around 90 % effective- hence the second one or 'booster'? which would suggest there will always be measles cases around even when children HAVE been vaccinated, not even including children who have not been vaccinated because they are too young. Therefore the argument does not stand up.

Calling people who do not choose the MMR 'stupid' and 'idiots' is in itself stupid and idiotic. Poeple who do not vaccinate or who choose separate vaxes ( as I did with both my dds)usually do so after a lot of individual research , consultation and investigation. That does not make them 'stupid' and 'idiots' - it makes them concerned and cautious. Everyone I know who did not elect to get the MMR for their DC did so after a great deal of research.

Haven't read every post so 'scuse me if someone's already answered this - but if your child has had the MMR (and mine have - after some careful thought) and they catch measles surely it's a less vicious type of measles or affects their bodies much less agressively than if they hadn't had the jab?
Or am I very much mistaken?

But aren't you saying that her complaint that people who aren't getting their kids vaccinated means there are more cases of measles around is "worthless" on the basis that some people who are vaccinated still contract measles?

novicemama

You must be stressed enough as it is, don't waste time arguing with the anti MMR brigade. Their posititions are entrenched and they'll never change their minds. The internet means that for every argument pro MMR you can quickly google a counter argument and so it goes on.

But I very much like your point about how people are not going to 'fess up that they decided not to vaccinate because they read a scary article in the Daily Mail. I am with you, that this is the way the majority of anti-vaccination decisions are made, and the people who come on here and fight their case are in a minority.

Maybe Inmy- that would be a partial vaccination failure. But full vaccination failures occur too, so you get it just as you would if you hadn't been vaccinated at all.

DS1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child who had a full vaccination failure. He had standard, normal rubella.

DS had measles after having first MMR but not booster. The measles itself was mild, but he's been more prone to D & V bugs afterwards, which may of course be coincidence, or down to the first D & V bug pre-disposing him to more....

Jujumaman, it's almost like a clarion call goes out.

'The internet means that for every argument pro MMR you can quickly google a counter argument and so it goes on.'
With respect the rabidly pro MMR people on this thread seem to be the only ones googling counter arguments.

btw the GP I saw who DXd the measles felt that since immunisation measles wasn't the disease it was when he had started in medicine, it was much milder. (which I appreciate isn't quite how the OP novicemama will feel about it if her DD has been son unwell with it).

wrt to the immunisation issue - never ever crossed my mind to "blame" other parents for DS getting measles. I'm open minded as to people having genuine concerns about immunisations, I put off having DS's MMR booster because he had severe language delay and some autistic traits at 3 so was concerned about making matters worse.

'Jujumaman, it's almost like a clarion call goes out'

Might be something to do with the self righteousness mixed with total lack of correct information bandied about.

at clarion call. The posters on here who have personal adverse experience of imms have posted with remarkable grace considering.

It just doens't end up coming across as a very balanced debate.

Ruty - Beachcomber does a fab line in googling counter arguments - some of them are from quite speactacular sources.

Dammit - got dragged back in again.

'hides thread'

"So the point here is that the Taylor et al study does not rule out that a small sub-group of children may have a rare idiosyncratic response to the MMR. While I do have every sympathy for people whose children may fall within this group, the findings of the research show that the group is so small as to be statistically insignificant."

But noveicemama- you're not understanding. Taylor et al's paper is supposedly refuting Wakefield's. But Wakefield theory is that the reaction is notcommon. He is not suggesting it has led to a rise in autism (as is often said). About 7% of children with autism are believed to have autistic enterocolitis (maybe slightly less now, because it was particularly associated with the brand of MMR that was withdrawn and autism numbers have continued to rise)- the condition described by Wakefield. if 1 in 100 children are autistic, then you're going to struggle to find 7% of those 1 in a 100 in a population level study. You're not going to be able to do it frankly. Which is why it hasn't been done. The only way you refute Wakefield's work is to examine the children and give an alternative model for what is going on in this subgroup. But no-one has done that.

I haven't read the whole thread because I haven't got time but didn't the Danish study of 2002 - the biggest ever conducted, by independent (not government) researchers carried out over 14 years and involving over half a million children conclude that their was no link between MMR and autism?

Not stirring - just asking the non vaccinators what their take is on this.

A study involving a dozen kids - nah I probably wouldn't pay much heed. A study involving 530,000 - well, yes, I would.

So are we agreed that the risk is staistically tiny?

The Danish Study did not examine Wakefield's hypothesis. NO-ONE is suggesting that MMR has led to a rise in autism cases. It has been suggested it has triggered autism in a small sub-population. This will not be picked up at population level.

There are other problems with the Danish study of a more technical nature, but not actually asking the correct question is the biggest.

'It just doens't end up coming across as a very balanced debate.'

Take maybe 100 posters saying, in effect,
'Wakefield's research has been discredited and people who don't give MMR to their children are socially irresponsible and Daily Mail readers'

Take maybe 10 others saying
'Er no, his research has not been discredited, here are the reasons why MMR may not be safe for a small number of children'

Not balanced? Really?